His language was appropriate to his "ideas" -- tortured and convoluted, even for German. IOW his thinking, to my mind, did not ultimately merit the effort of slogging through that ****.

If I want proto-existentialism, I'll go with Buber and Kierkegaard, whose language was far more poetic, and who didn't have so many illusions of being able to play in the Big Boy Sandbox of Metaphysics.

If I want proto-existentialism with a dash of (poetic) metaphysics, I'll take Schopenhauer, the angry old cuss. One funny, poisonous bastard; he still cracks me up.

If I want proto-existentialism, poetry and mysanthropy with a dash of Nazi Drama, I'll take Nietzsche. Kind of a one-trick pony, thoughtwise, but a keen observer and a fine writer.

As for Mr. Nazi-There-Being-of-the-Head-in-the-Fundament . . . you can have him!

Thanks for sharing your 'wants', billy sol hurok - they are light on detail, but well-written (my apologies if this sounds patronising). What you haven't done is demonstrate what is specifically wrong with Heidegger, and right with these other thinkers (who I esteem, particularly Nietzsche). What specifically is problematic in Being and Time and later writings like Introduction to Metaphysics, 'The Origin of the Work of Art', and the like?

Last edited by DAYoung; 5/24/2006 6:20pm at .

Martial Arts and Philosophy: Beating and Nothingnessclick here to order on Amazon

In all certainty I'd prefer infamy to fame. It seems like my illegitemate granpa Adolf's ghost would still be alive in so many forums. Who knew that peeing on my Jewish grandmother would get her pregnant. So for now I'll spin my swastika dredel and make matzos in my easy bake concentration oven. It's so hard being a skinhead with curly locks. (my homage to feedback)

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. I've been paying some attention to Iran for a while now, and very much appreciate your insights.

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

<snip of good stuff about outsider meddling>
Eep. That was all reacting to "humiliated country." :P

Yes, centuries of invading hordes, etc. And much of that meddling occurred within living memory. I *did* make sure to put "humiliated" in quotes, because although the war w/ Iraq was fought pretty much to a draw, it was so costly in lives and resources that the demoralization was palpable, or so I'm given to understand. Not at the level of Germany post-WWI, not by a long shot. But there is a superficial similarity (took pains to characterize all of my similarities as superficial).

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

Unacountable leadership: Yes^a lot. But that depends on what you mean. Jimmy Carter, a moral, decent man by most people's reckoning, spoke of Assad as being an "honest man," at least, "he's never lied to me," he "may be a dictator, but at least he keeps his word." (From Natan Sharansky's recent book...I forget the title. Something about the power of Democracy).

Jimmy Carter was and is a fuckhead of the first water. I blame him for much of the Islamic supremacism in the world today, at least as concerns the West.

When the US embassy was taken over, that was an act of war. It was a probe, to see if the USA really was the paper tiger that it appeared to be after Vietnam. And Carter pussed out, which only encouraged the jackels. It would be a very different world today had he, instead of playing Hamlet, gotten vein-popping angry and said: "Motherfuckers, you've got 12 hours to get our personnel, along with their effects, flown to Wiesbaden. Fail, and I will level Qom."

I'm no psychologist, but I agree with Jefferson that "An insult unpunished is the father of many more."

Don't get me wrong; Reagan did his part to encourage intransigence in the muslim world too, by pulling out of Beirut after the Marine barracks bombing. Terrible, terrible message to send. Who could blame the Assads, the bin Ladens, the Husseins of the world for concluding that the US was all talk and no action, that all you need do is bloody our nose and off we'd run? Likewise, Bush senior, who gave Saddam a good stiff jab, then went back to a neutral corner. Oh, and then egged the Kurds and the Shiites to overthrow him, but hung them out to dry immediately thereafter. As for Clinton . . . ah fuggit. Let's not even get started on that.

<deep breathing>

Wait, how did Carter get in there under the topic of unaccountable leaders? Well anyway, better he should stick to building low-cost housing.

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

I know the current Islamic regime entered into things in a tragic way. There existed, in Iran, communist and socialist forces (Irani people, mind you) that were attempting to reform the country outside of Sharia law. These were not all secular men, but many were, and they did not wish to establish an Islamic state.

(Someone close to me, when the polls were taken regarding the formation of the state, crossed out "Islamic" out of "Islamic republic," after asking the machine-gun toting "priest" for a pen. :P He was a former member of one of these groups.)

-
What balls! Now *that's* speaking truth to power!

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

They didn't have a chance. Why? Well, we all know, if we've read the Communist Manifesto, that communism is bought by blood. We know that it is a system that is perhaps...it fails certain human needs, and seems to be geared towards subsistence living, and does not have an eye for a wide variety of specialization.

But more importantly, they had no means of widespread communication. The mosques were there, and many attended, most of Iran, and so...religious revolutionaries had easy access to the people. The other forces...did not.

Not to mention the influence of the Soviets, who were menacing Iran from the north. (And who, it might be added, were hardly poster children for the glories of the communist state.)

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

The Islamic regime promised a lot, and became extremely suppressive and unjust. Like Fidel, ironically enough.

Agree with your conclusion, but fail to see any irony. As you basically say later: left/right, po-tay-to/po-tah-to.

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

Unaccountable? I believe that any nation that ignores its people's desires is unaccountable, regardless of its foreign policy. (My reference to Assad). This part of your comparison I can certainly agree with.

By unaccountable, I refer to the mullahs, a corrupt theocracy that was never elected, and which runs the country. All other elections are window-dressing when the guys in the turbans call the shots.

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

The "master-race mentality" and the demonization of others: Here I'm not so sure. Hitler's propaganda focused on repetition and deep emotional representation. (Hitler himself was such a master of propaganda that he felt it best to conduct rallies at night. People would be most suggestive when tired. :P What a dick).

Reminds me of when the Moonies and their ilk were big news. It was said that in addition to isolating you from your friends and family, they would also put you on a diet with almost NO protien, which was said to sap your psychological resistance. No idea whether that's true, at either level (i.e., whether they in fact did that, nor whether in fact protein does provide a modicum of independant thought).

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

I think that there is a certain ethnocentrism in Iran, in the party line. But does this represent the general people? I feel that it does not. No Irani I know feels that the United States' people ought to die, or be punished. It's interesting, when you look at the London population and its response to the bombing of Germany, invariably, those who have been bombed feel that Germany's civilian populations should not! be bombed. Those who hadn't? They were for it. :P

The same applies to those Irani I know (This is, of course, not a good sample population for 70 million people, I readily admit). They separate the action of certain powers (United States, Russia, Britain, etc.) from its people. Irani I know may not agree or appreciate with certain foreign policies, but we know when to separate "government" from "people."

Most accounts that I've read suggest that the Irani people do indeed draw a line between government and people, and that they're pretty kindly disposed toward Americans.

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

So, there is undoubtably ethnocentrism in the bad government, but does this constitute a master-race mentality? I feel it doesn't, it is truly ethnocentrism, and not racism. Here I must disagree, though ironically enough, Iran...I believe in the Sassinyd period, was labeled Iran, "Land of the Aryans." Go figure. :P

Here's where I clearly threw a wrench in the works by being imprecise. In defending myself from the "Godwin" charge, I was essentially assuming arguendo that the badge thing was true. Though again, the Nazis got the whole "tagging of second class citizens" thing from the muslims...

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

Belligerence towards Europe: This, I feel, is skillful diplomacy, and for the most part posturing. While neither Iran nor any European power has a significant military, we know that any threats made are likely for the sake of appearance. The truth is, Europe was and is in no real danger from any Middle Eastern power. (As one can see from the Oil for Food scandal, as long as a colonial power is a former colonial power, it's all good. :P) The former colonialist powers have developed, under the blanket of American military security and the massive devastation of the world wars, a kind of diplomacy that rests on economic ties and negotiation. From this comparatively new method of diplomacy we see the recent split between Europe and America on the whole "War on Terror" thing.

But here my disagreement will depend upon the future. I think it's more likely that I am right, and this is merely posturing and reacting to "insults" like the whole Denmark cartoon thing, and not Hitler's, "I'm totally gonna write a book and tell you I'm going to take your ****. This is not a joke. Testing. Is this mike on?"

:-)

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

The suppression of voices: Yes. There are a lot of sad stories and a smaller percentage of funny ones. Some friend of my family was in a communist organization. The organization divided into cells, so that anyone who was caught could shortly reveal all he knew and thus be safer from torture. This guy had such balls, he waited for the time to be up (few hours) and then said, "Okay, I'll tell you everything I know. If you torture me, I won't say a word." Funny part of the story? They didn't torture him! I guess it's sad that those are my family's "happy stories."

Mighty sad indeed. :-(

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

So to recap because that was rather long-quote superficial unquote comparisons to Nazi Germany vs. the Islamic "Republic" of Iran:

1) Humiliated country: yes.
2) Unaccountable leadership: yes.
3) "Master-race mentality" and demonization of other countries: No and really depends. Here I think the analysis fails on both ends, there's a lot of source propaganda that had nothing to do with nations, rather than groups like homosexuals, gypsies, black people, jews, etc. Unfortunately I forgot to touch on Israel. Put me down for a "maybe," depending on if we're talking about Irani or Irani government.
4) Belligerence towards Europe: Definite no.
5) Suppression of voices: Definite yes. I feel this is the strongest, along with #1 and #2.

You may be suprised, but there a lot of Persians who became secular or were secular. (The ones who became secular were those asked to run across mindfields. Sorry, this is inserted for mostly dramatic effect, and is untrue).

Not surprised, though I didn't know whether the whole Minefield Martyrs thing was true or not.

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

The only thing I take issue to in this paragraph is the "under the age of 30" thing. Perhaps youth is associated with idealism, but in this case I'd say many of the people who dislike or hate (very deeply in the case of people I'm closest to) the Irani government are over the age of 50. 'Cause, you know, they went through the revolution.

Interesting, that. The given wisdom is that Khomeni encouraged a population explosion, but it blew back up in the theocracy's face when they were faced with a huge youthful population that yearned for the comforts of modernity. Though I'm not surprised to learn that the ones who went through the revolution are the most disillusioned.

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

I don't think Iran is as bad as Nazi Germany, but I do think Iran needs many changes, very badly. It needs a savvy government that is, perhaps, the first to take advantage of the promises of direct democracy that an Internet-like technology could bring. (Through providing many sources of information to the populace and also the vote tallying).

If only the expatriated population was significant. :P In truth, it's probably a bad thing that a wave of intellectuals left Iran, but, then again, they were getting killed left and right. (That is a pun, I apologize. I do not believe in the typification in politics of "left" and "right" anyway).

I'm given to understand that expats are key in making sure that there's plenty of outside news beamed into the country, in a SatTV Free Iran kind of way.

Originally Posted by Tef-the-Persian

I really hope Iran doesn't get attacked. There is a human cost in any forcible change, and I'm what Kinky Friedman would call a sissy. I really can't countenance the U.S.A. or the "West" changing Iran's domestic policies via military influence.

Although regime change would be desirable, I don't believe that anyone plans to do it militarily. What they *do* plan to do militarily is to denuke Iran. Which will involve a lot of collateral damage, as it seems that they've placed many of the installations in (and under) civilian populated areas. Though even w/o heavy collateral damage, there's nothing to get citizens rallying around the flag like attacking their turf. So unfortunately, defanging that snake will set political relations back longer still.

Not to mention the global recession/depression when the Straits of Hormuz becomes a shooting gallery, instead of a conduit for oil.

Here's hoping someone finds a way around it, though damnned if I know how . . .

Thanks for sharing your 'wants', billy sol hurok - they are light on detail, but well-written (my apologies if this sounds patronising).

No apology necessary, I was going for 'glib.':thumbsup:

Originally Posted by DAYoung

What you haven't done is demonstrate what is specifically wrong with Heidegger, and right with these other thinkers (who I esteem, particularly Nietzsche). What specifically is problematic in Being and Time and later writings like Introduction to Metaphysics, 'The Origin of the Work of Art', and the like?

In truth, my distaste for Heidegger is decades old, and mainly based on foggy recollection. Having taken a whole seminar on Being and Time, I felt as though I'd given the guy a fair chance. (Especially in view of the fact that the seminar was taught by the head of the department, who was also my faculty advisor -- it would have been a whole lot easier if I'd liked the mealy-mouthed Nazi's work. :sleepy2:)

After Kant and Hegel, whom I regarded as titans, Heidegger's metaphysics seemed derivative and simplistic, traits that I felt he was trying to gloss over with a lot of fancy linguistic footwork and a smattering of twentieth century angst. Again, based on foggy recollection, though I certainly know how to hold a grudge! :icon_lol:

Don't think I was ever exposed to his theory of aesthetics, though that was a field that I enjoyed very much.

I admit that I haven't revisited his work for lo these many years, as life is short and there's so much more to read before I die. Ya gotta pick your battles, after all.

Oh, and did I mention that he was a Nazi? :hitlerdan:icon_lol:

Best I can do on short notice. I gather that he's informed your life more than he has mine; anything in particular come to mind as a favorite insight?

In truth, my distaste for Heidegger is decades old, and mainly based on foggy recollection. Having taken a whole seminar on Being and Time, I felt as though I'd given the guy a fair chance. (Especially in view of the fact that the seminar was taught by the head of the department, who was also my faculty advisor -- it would have been a whole lot easier if I'd liked the mealy-mouthed Nazi's work. :sleepy2:)

After Kant and Hegel, whom I regarded as titans, Heidegger's metaphysics seemed derivative and simplistic, traits that I felt he was trying to gloss over with a lot of fancy linguistic footwork and a smattering of twentieth century angst. Again, based on foggy recollection, though I certainly know how to hold a grudge! :icon_lol:

Don't think I was ever exposed to his theory of aesthetics, though that was a field that I enjoyed very much.

I admit that I haven't revisited his work for lo these many years, as life is short and there's so much more to read before I die. Ya gotta pick your battles, after all.

Oh, and did I mention that he was a Nazi? :hitlerdan:icon_lol:

Best I can do on short notice. I gather that he's informed your life more than he has mine; anything in particular come to mind as a favorite insight?

Anyone else want to jump into the Summarize Proust competition?

Zu den sachen!

You have a PM.

Martial Arts and Philosophy: Beating and Nothingnessclick here to order on Amazon